Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Globalization and the Real Estate Industry: Issues, Implications, Opportunities1
Ashok Bardhan and Cynthia A. Kroll
Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley Paper Prepared for the Sloan Industry Studies Annual Conference
Cambridge, April 2007 Introduction
Real estate has historically been viewed as a local phenomenon. Builders and investors for
decades prided themselves in their ability to find the best "location, location, location" based on their
local knowledge. It is among the least "tradable" of products, in the sense of being physically
unmovable, even though it can be bought and sold both domestically and internationally. This
combination of local knowledge and predominantly local tradability was the primary reason why
discussions of globalization in the 1990s and earlier, overlooked the real estate industry as a possible
participant in the ongoing phenomenon of increasing global economic integration. Although an
occasional headline would be grabbed by a foreign purchase of a local landmark (New York's
Rockefeller Center, Arco Plaza in Los Angeles, and even the Pebble Beach resort), the business itself
remained largely local, with US firms dominating in US markets, and foreign firms in foreign markets.
In the last decade, however, globalization has increasingly involved the internationalization of
services sectors as much as of manufacturing, and the various sub-sectors of the real estate industry
have been enthusiastic participants in this global surge. Builders, brokerage firms, consulting and
services firms, real estate finance firms and investors have extended their area of operations beyond
local markets to a world-wide base.
1 This paper is part of a larger set of studies on how globalization is affecting the US real estate industry. The authors of this report have benefited from the insights of Dwight Jaffee, and the assistance of Nathan George and John Tang, graduate student researchers at the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics.
2
Several factors have led to this transformation of the industry. Technological changes have
extended the geographic reach and weakened the nexus between “local” and “location”. The increasing
opening up of formerly closed economies in the developing world has thrown open significant
opportunities for real estate firms across the globe. Liberalization of business licensing, taxation and
property ownership regulations in some of the largest emerging real estate markets further facilitates
the participation by US real estate firms in global opportunities.
On the financial investment side, securitization and development of a variety of different
financial instruments all over the world lend liquidity and tradability to both real estate equity and
debt. While foreign investors are able to invest in these financial assets in the US, diversification
motives and the search for a different risk-return profile lead many US investors to add foreign real
estate physical assets or foreign real-estate-related financial securities to their portfolio. The increasing
integration of global financial markets, in their turn, tends to impact the pricing of these assets.
On the demand side, some of the largest consumers of real estate are becoming increasingly
global. Multinational firms, with their manufacturing plants, their distributors and suppliers, and now
increasingly service sector firms, ranging from financial to legal, have global footprints. Offshoring, or
the transfer of production facilities, back-offices and R&D centers by US multinationals to developing
countries has given a major boost to commercial real estate in those countries. Of greater significance
for the US real estate industry, major US real estate service firms have followed these clients abroad,
expanding the types of services provided, as well as their geographic coverage. Even residential real
estate brokerage firms have followed an increasingly mobile expatriate population into the
international arena, forging alliances with companies throughout the globe to provide relocation
services and worldwide access to residential markets. Additionally, the emergent middle-classes in
3
Asia and elsewhere with their pent up demand have given a boost to residential and retail real estate
activity, providing a new range of opportunities for forward-looking US firms.
Globalization, in general, and offshoring in particular, have also had direct and indirect effects
on the supply chain for real estate construction. Offshoring, made possible by low labor costs in
developing countries and advances in transportation and shipping, has led to the global sourcing of
inputs, such as steel and wood products. At the same time, US builders are competing for inputs,
equipment and resources in the face of growing worldwide demand led by the emerging economies of
Asia. China has become both a leading producer and consumer of many building materials, and
questions exist as to whether growth will lead to excess capacity or excess demand in coming years.
Either could significantly affect the building process and real estate prices in the US.
This article is a preliminary look at the impact of globalization on the real estate industry. We
set the context for the study by defining the major elements of the real estate industry, briefly
reviewing relevant literature, and discussing the data used in the paper as well as data limitations. The
paper then focuses on several aspects of globalization in the US real estate industry. We begin with a
description of trends in cross-border investments in real estate and portfolio investments in real estate
related activity. We next address issues related to global sourcing and trends in the real estate supply
chain. We review future global opportunities for the real estate industry in the context of comparative
international statistics and global demographic changes. We then illustrate how these trends affect firm
activities and structure, drawing on information from a company database, firm web sites, annual
reports, interviews and a survey. We conclude with a discussion of the questions raised by trends in
globalization, some challenges to global opportunities, and future research directions.
4
Defining the US Real Estate Industry
The real estate "industry" spans across several industrial categories, including individual
sectors within the broader groupings of services, finance and construction. The sector defined by the
North American Industrial Classification system as real estate (NAIC 531) includes only real estate
services such as leasing, brokerage, management and appraisal. This segment of the industry employed
1.5 million nationwide in 2006 (just over 1 percent of the US employed labor force).
Real estate finance, including the mortgage industry, related financial activity, and real estate
investment trusts, employs an additional half million. Building construction and land subdivision
firms are also major players in the real estate industry, with 1.8 million employees in 2006. An
additional 1.5 million were employed in real estate related professional services such as architecture,
engineering and design. The overall employment in the real estate cluster is therefore close to 5
million, accounting for about 3.5% of the employed labor force. (See Table 1).
Figure 1 shows the relationships among these different segments of the real estate industry. An
individual type of firm, or even a sector within the industry, can overlap several types of activities. For
example, REITs include a financial ownership structure that adds liquidity to what was once a highly
illiquid asset. At the same time, many REITs are heavily involved in many aspects of the physical
asset, from land assembly to design and construction to building management.
5
Table 1 Major Real Estate Employment Categories, Employment Levels and Growth
NAIC Code
INDUSTRY NAME Employment 2006
(1000s)
1995-2000 2000-2006
Total nonfarm 136174 2.4% 0.5% 2360 Construction of buildings 1806 4.3% 1.7% 2361 Residential building 1017.5 5.5% 3.6% 2362 Nonresidential building 788.5 3.1% -0.4% 2372 Land subdivision 96.7 2.4% 1.4% 2380 Specialty trade contractors 4899.6 5.8% 2.5%
Finance Related 546 8.3% 9.2% 5222 Real estate credit 354.8 8.4% 8.0% 5223 Mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers 146.2 8.8% 15.7% 5259 Other investment pools and funds* 45 7.1% 2.9% 5300 Real estate and rental and leasing 2179.6 2.7% 1.4% 5310 Real estate 1503.3 2.2% 2.3% 5311 Lessors of real estate 599 1.0% -0.2% 5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 381 3.3% 5.2% 5313 Activities related to real estate 523.3 3.3% 3.6% 5313 Real estate property managers 438.9 3.3% 3.1% 5313 Offices of real estate appraisers 41.5 3.5% 4.4% 5313 Other activities related to real estate 42.8 3.3% 8.0%
Real estate related professional services 1521.4 4.5% 1.8% 5413 Architectural and engineering services 1385.6 4.4% 1.9% 5414 Specialized design services 135.8 5.8% 0.6% Source: Authors from Bureau of Labor Statistics employment series.
When it comes to the international operations of US firms, a significant amount of real estate related
activity gets subsumed under other categories. Real estate developers and service providers work in
tandem with multinational companies and other clients to ensure that the entities are "housed"
wherever they are located globally. Thus, an investment by a corporation in a company facility
abroad, whether in manufacturing, warehousing, retail or office space is also a real estate transaction.
6
Figure 1
There is also a real estate “component” to transactions, both domestic and international, that
spill over into public sector infrastructure and natural resources, as well as with respect to firms
belonging to a broad range of non-real estate related sectors, to the extent that some firms in each of
these sectors employ real estate professionals for daily operations.
Short Literature Review on Globalization and Real Estate
Academic literature on the interaction of globalization and real estate is sparse. In economics,
for example, international economics and real estate economics co-exist in virtually isolated arenas,
with rare contact or cross-references, with some notable exceptions, such as Henderson (1982), and the
emerging literature on the “new economic geography,” which deals with the interplay between cities,
urban agglomerations and international trade (Fujita, Krugman and Venables, 2001). Bardhan,
7
Edelstein and Leung (2004) look at the impact of openness of national economies on urban residential
rents in 55 cities around the world. Ades and Glaeser (1995) and Krugman and Livas-Elizondo(1996)
are among the few papers that link urban economics, international economics and trade policy.
There is somewhat more literature on the finance side of globalization and real estate,
particularly related to the issue of portfolio diversification and real estate market co-movements.
Eichholtz (1995) finds that the international property rates of return covariances are unstable, which
may limit their usefulness in standard portfolio allocation models. Goetzmann and Wachter (1996)
perform a mean-variance analysis for a sample of international office markets and identify three
clusters of office markets that tend to “move together”, which may impair investor ability to diversify
across international markets. However, Conover et al (2002) show that foreign real estate investments
provide diversification benefits beyond that obtainable from foreign stocks. Countering naïve
diversification strategies, Geurts and Jaffe (1995) show that the country specific risk/ return
relationship is affected by institutional characteristics (such as political risk and socio-cultural factors).
Hoesli et al (2004) confirm the portfolio diversification benefits of including real estate assets in a
mixed-asset portfolio, but Stevenson (2000), on the other hand, shows that the potential diversification
benefits that could arise from investing in real estate securities are generally not statistically
significant. Bardhan, Edelstein and Tsang (2006) find that a country’s real estate security excess (risk-
adjusted) returns are negatively related to its openness suggesting that market efficiency for listed
property firms may have been enhanced in globalizing economies. Kallberg and Liu (2002) find that a
common factor drives equity returns and real estate returns, and that real estate securities were
particularly vulnerable to crises in Asia in the 1997-98 period.
A number of studies have addressed newly emerging mortgage markets, but there is little
academic research on the interaction between US and other developed country mortgage markets and
8
mortgage systems in emerging economies, or on international investments in mortgage security
instruments. Deng, Zheng and Ling (2004) assess the early experience in China with a mortgage
system dealing with different borrower risk profiles than in developed countries. Ong (2005)
emphasizes the variety of experiences with mortgage instruments in Asian markets, from India to
China to Hong Kong, pointing to the small size of these markets and the growth potential. At the US
end, Jacobides (2007 forthcoming) finds that despite a US mortgage industry structure that makes
international servicing possible, local institutional characteristics of developing countries have resulted
in these ventures being problematic. The impact of global capital imbalances and of Asian capital
inflows into US treasuries and mortgage backed securities on US interest rates, mortgage rate and the
housing market is another subject where research is still in its initial stages.
Most of the analyses of globalizing real estate services come from trade publications, rather
than from academic literature. Giordano (2003), for example, concludes that global expansion of
building activity and financing has led to greater need for consistent project management and Edge
(2001) describes issues relating to appraisal standards property investments globalize. The role of a
small number of real estate investment trusts in providing global, retail development expertise is
covered in Luxemberg (2007a). Rushmore (2007) analyzes the tourism sector and concludes that
opportunities for US hotel developers will be stronger by providing services to middle class from
developing countries, rather than by becoming developers and operators of hotels within the emerging
economies themselves.
The effects of globalization on specific aspects of local real estate markets have been addressed
through a number of case studies. Lichtenberger (1993) identifies the twin issues of insufficient supply
and rapid increase in prices in fast-opening urban centers. The emerging opportunities and continuing
risk of real estate investment in Mexico associated with changing institutional structure is described by
9
Jones, Jimenez and Ward (1993). Sheng and Kirinpanu (2000) argue that expanded access to
international capital in Thailand led first to a housing boom, followed by a collapse with financial
repercussions. The interplay of global investors, local firms, and the local institutional structure can
have different implications depending on the geographic, cultural and political setting, as demonstrated
by case histories in Mumbai (Nijman 2000) and Shanghai (Zhu, Sim and Zhang 2006).
The published academic literature leaves many gaps in the research agenda, as well as quite a
few questions unresolved. We revert to some of them in the concluding section. A major purpose of
this paper is to review the different threads of research on this topic, delineate and differentiate
research on globalization and real estate related issues from other globalization related work in
economics, and to chart a future research agenda.
Measuring Globalization in Real Estate
Globalization of an industry usually encompasses three different kinds of activity: first, an
international trade in goods and services that the industry produces; second, cross-border investment in
facilities for production, sales, distribution of the output or of some element of the supply chain; and
third, cross-border portfolio investments in the financial securities of that industry. We use several
approaches to measure and track the degree of globalization of each of these aspects of the real estate
industry.
We rely on published statistics from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Treasury
Department for foreign purchases of US Treasuries, Agency securities and other financial instruments,
and for quantitative measures of foreign direct investment by US real estate investors abroad and by
10
foreign investors in the US. 2 The data on financial flows appear to be consistent and reliable, although
not always at the level of detail preferred by academic researchers. The data on direct investment
flows are quite problematic. The reported real estate measures for FDI and DIA appear to refer to a
very small proportion of actual cross-border investment in real estate assets. We briefly address this in
the report but will address the problem in much more detail at a later stage in our study of real estate
globalization.
Data on employment and output in various sectors of the real estate industry come from the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Value added and gross product
measures for real estate show inconsistencies with employment measures. We concentrate on
employment aspects in this report and leave closer scrutiny of output and value added for a later stage
of the study.
Indices of building material supplies and prices are drawn from trade organization data as well
as data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We also
draw on international demographic and economic statistics published by the United Nations and the
World Bank for data regarding potential demand in emerging economies.
To understand company structure, we analyze company data on OneSource to determine the
extent to which large real estate firms are accessing global markets, the degree to which their
ownership structure has become global, and the extent to which they have established global branches.
To augment this information, we conducted a brief, preliminary survey of firms on the Fisher Center
for Real Estate and Urban Economics Policy Advisory Board, to determine current and future plans for
global activities and to explore the motivations behind expanding globally.
2 Defined by the US Dept of Commerce as ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person, or entity, of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated domestic business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated domestic business enterprise.
11
International Investments in Real Estate
The lack of “international trade” in real estate is now being compensated for by increasing
cross-border investments in real estate, international development projects, multinational real estate
ventures and integrated township/housing developments, not just in markets traditionally hospitable to
foreign investments, such as Europe and North America, but increasingly in the real estate markets of
the developing world. The motivations of foreign investors have been varied, and include stable and
solid returns, a quest for diversification, as well as the role of US real estate and other assets as a
refuge of “last resort”.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) in US real estate has had a long history, but unfortunately the
official data seriously underestimate foreign direct investment in US real estate and US real estate
investment abroad. According to official US Department of Commerce data, by 1990 there was only
$30 billion (on a historical cost basis) invested in US real estate by foreign individuals, firms and
organizations. Except for a momentary dip from 2002 to 2003, FDI has been rising steadily, as have
the official numbers on direct investment by US investors in foreign real estate (direct investment
abroad or DIA) since 2002.
We believe the real estate figures for both FDI and DIA understate the extent of foreign
investment in physical real estate, because company investments in facilities are frequently counted as
being part of the investment of the company in its main line of business/industrial sector (eg.
manufacturing), rather than as a real estate investment. As a rough guide, in the domestic investment
figures of the US national accounts, investment in structures (or the real estate component), on average
accounts for close to one-third of all business investment. The overall figures for the 2005 year-end
position for FDI in the US and DIA by the US for all sectors are $2.8 trillion and $3.5 trillion,
respectively, in market value terms. The real estate sector accounts for a negligible share of the total
12
going by the official figures--in the range of one to two percent. Applying the “one-third rule”
mentioned above, reflecting the real estate content of investments in other sectors, would increase the
figures for international investments in real estate by an order of magnitude. Since this data
discrepancy is a major issue, our research group has targeted the estimation of the actual real estate
“component” of both FDI in the US, and US investment abroad for future research.
While global capital flows have been of a significant magnitude for decades, recent years have
seen a major increase in cross-country portfolio investments in both debt and equity instruments.
Figure 2 shows the increasing role played by foreign central banks, organizations and investors in the
total US credit market (in addition to treasuries and agency backed securities, this also includes
corporate and municipal bonds, mortgages, other loans and consumer credit) in the post-war period. In
addition to playing a big role in US credit markets, non-US entities also own a significant portion,
approximately 15%, of the total US equities outstanding.
Figure 2
Total Credit Market Debt Held by Rest of World as
Share of Total US Credit Market Debt Outstanding;
1945-2006
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Source: Flow of Funds; Table L 1
13
Table 2 Top 10 Foreign Holders of US Securities, June 2005
Treasury Bonds Agency Bonds Corporate Equities Corporate Bonds Country Share* Country Share* Country Share* Country Share* Japan 35% China 20% UK 9% Belgium 13% China 16% Japan 15% Canada 8% Luxembourg 12% Taiwan 4% Russia 8% Japan 6% UK 12% S Korea 3% Belgium 5% Netherlands 6% Cayman Is. 10% UK 3% Cay. Is. 5% Cayman Is 6% Japan 6% Germany 2% S Korea 5% Luxembourg 5% Ireland 5% Hong Kong 2% Luxembourg 5% Switzerland 5% Bermuda 4% Luxembourg 2% Taiwan 4% Singapore 3% Canada 3% Cayman Is. 2% Bermuda 3% Germany 3% Netherlands 3% Switzerland 2% Mexico 3% France 3% Switzerland 3% Source: http://ustreas.gov/tic/fpis.html *Share of total foreign holdings.
There are differing geographical patterns for foreign investments in US physical structures and
in US financial securities. The same problematic FDI data that give an undercount of overall foreign
investment in real estate show the developed European countries, such as Netherlands, the UK,
Germany and Switzerland, and Japan as the major investors in real physical assets. This pattern is
similar to that of the country of origin of foreign investment in other sectors of the US economy,
whether they are in manufacturing or services. In contrast to the pattern of country-wise holdings in
real estate physical assets, where the developed, industrialized countries are the major players, China
has been the largest investor in US agency bonds, issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises, such
as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (see Table 2).
Table 2 gives shares of US financial securities held by various countries as a percentage of the
total held by foreigners. Furthermore, the absolute amounts are quite significant. For example, out of a
total of $6.6 trillion of overall outstanding agency debt, close to $1.2 trillion (or about 18%) is held by
foreign entities. Net annual purchases of treasury bonds and company stocks have fluctuated, although
rising on average over the past decade, while there has been steady growth in the foreign purchase of
14
both agency and corporate bonds. Over the last few years, there has been a trend on the part of foreign
investors, particularly Asian central banks, to move away from the purchases of US treasuries and
invest more in agency bonds and mortgage backed securities. Net annual foreign purchases of US
treasuries peaked in the year 2004 at $350 billion and have come down to $200 billion in 2006, while
net purchases of agencies by foreigners have seen a steady rise, going from around $150 billion in the
year 2000 to nearly $300 billion in 2006 (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Net Annual Purchases by All Foreigners of US
Securities
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Treasury Bonds Agencies Corporate Bonds Company Stocks
$, Bill.
Source: http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/s1_99996.txt
A number of ongoing studies, including one by the Fisher Center, deal with issues relating to
the foreign financing of US debt and its impact on US interest rates, including the mortgage rate. There
is a general consensus that the major purchases of credit market instruments by foreign investors have
been a factor in keeping US interest rates low, but there is a range of opinion regarding the potential
vulnerability of the US financial system, in general, and the future course of the dollar, in particular.
15
Diversification and risk reduction possibilities for international real estate investors have
increasingly lured them into new markets. Demand from endowments and pension funds for
investments in foreign real estate are helping drive the trend. Some of the push is driven by a belief
that overseas markets offer more opportunities and higher investment returns than US markets
Luxember 2007a and 2007b;). There is some evidence that cross-continent investment can offer
increased diversification, as shown by a study by Torto Wheaton Research on the correlation of rent
within and between continents (Torto 2002). However, our discussions with real estate investment
firm executives and economists specializing in international finance indicate concern that geographic
diversification may not always be forthcoming. Indeed, connected to this trend of greater international
participation by investors in most national markets is the phenomenon of financial market contagion.
The Asian crisis of 1997 was an early indicator of the nexus between real estate and banking crises, on
the one hand, and the interconnectedness of financial markets in the region, on the other.
Yet another aspect of globalization and its impact on the world of real estate is the
demonstration effect and impact of the US institutional structure on real estate and mortgage markets
in the emerging economies. Experts and policy makers in Asian countries, for example, are trying to
model various aspects of their mortgage markets after the US mortgage markets, including the range of
mortgage products, aspects of risk-based pricing, appraisal standards, secondary markets for mortgage
backed securities, provision of affordable housing and mortgage insurance. (Allen, Chui, Maddaloni,
2004; Ong, 2005; Zhu, 2006; Deng, Zheng, Ling, 2004).
Global Sourcing and the Real Estate Supply Chain
The supply chain for real estate is affected by two separate phenomena, both connected to
globalization. The interplay of offshoring and real estate can be seen in the transfer of some back-
16
office activities in the US real estate cluster itself, for example in design/architecture, real estate
finance and property management, to design, finance and accounting firms in India. However, from the
point of view of US real estate and construction firms, the possibility of offshoring some elements of
their supply chain cost-centers to cheaper locations can potentially be a mixed blessing. The growth in
emerging markets, partly fueled by offshoring of manufacturing and services jobs from developed
countries, has led to a rapid growth in demand for mineral resources, building materials and other
inputs, leading to a sizeable impact on global prices.
A few charts illustrate some of the trends taking place in the markets for key commodities.
Figure 4 shows import and export trends for nonmetal building materials and iron and steel, adjusted
for inflation using the Producer Price Index, from 1978 through 2006. Exports (by value, adjusted for
inflation) are currently higher than they were in 1980 but lower than in the mid-1990s. Building
material imports are more than 4 times their 1980 level and the rate of growth of imports accelerated
sharply in the 1990s, as shown in Figure 5. This is comparable to the overall change in levels of
imports in the US.
17
Figure 4
Import and Export Trends, Building Materials1978-2006 ($ millions, 2006 base)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
/p/
Exports: Building materials* Imports: Building materials*
Exports: Iron and steel products Imports: Iron and steel products
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transacti ons Accounts
data; adjusted for inflation with the producer price index.
*except metals
Figure 5
Import and Export Growth of Building Materials Annual Rate of
Change, Selected Periods
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
80-90 90-95 95-2000 00-06
GDP Exports: Building materials*
Imports: Building materials* Exports: Iron and steel products
Imports: Iron and steel products
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transacti ons Accounts
data; adjusted for inflation with the producer price index.
*except metals
18
Figure 6
Steel Consumption, US and China, 1990 -2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bil
lio
ns o
f T
on
s
China US
Source: International Iron and Steel Institute
Figure 5
Steel Consumption, US and China, 1990 -2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Mil
lio
ns o
f T
on
s
China US
Source: International Iron and Steel Institute
The increasingly global nature of the supply chain is reflected in consumption patterns as well
as in import and export flows. The International Iron and Steel Institute, for example, reports a broad
shift in relative levels of steel consumption between China and the US, as shown in Figure 6. Data also
19
show that the global competition for limited key resources and materials has coincided with sharp
increases in the price of some building materials (see Figure 7). However, it is possible that the supply
crunch, at least for some of the commodities, is temporary, and that the combination of efficient global
allocations of plants, technological change and scale economies will boost globalizing supply and help
meet the global growth in demand (Linneman 2006). In addition, discussion with real estate developers
as well as a presentation on the real estate supply chain (Madhavan 2007) suggests that the proportion
of inputs whose prices have been rising quickly on the global markets constitute a relatively small
share of the total inputs used in the real estate sector (perhaps as low as 5%, based on an estimate from
the US Economic Census), and that the key costs were labor costs. The effect is likely to be different in
the emerging economies where the proportion of labor costs is lower and that of inputs higher.
Figure 7
Selected Building Products Price Indices
1990 -2005
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Construction Materials Wood Products
Metals Machinery & Equipment
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1982=100.
20
Economic Growth and Global Opportunities
Three broad factors have come together at this economic moment and given rise to global real
estate opportunities, particularly in the emerging economies. These include the rapid economic growth
experienced by these countries, changing demographics, both in developed and developing countries,
and the phenomenon of offshoring. Opportunities have been created by the recent opening up of
countries in the developing world, and also by the widespread fragmentation of real estate markets in
emerging economies, the proliferation of family owned-traditional firms and the accompanying lack of
professionalization in the sector. While the manufacturing and services sectors in these countries have
always had at least a few firms which were efficient adopters of global best practices in organization
and management, the real estate sector, in a sense, has been a late-comer to modernization itself,
although even in the real estate sector, every developing country has examples of state-of-the-art
hotels, office buldings and residential complexes.
The offshoring of white-collar jobs from the US to India has gathered steam in the last decade
or so, joining the outmigration of blue-collar manufacturing jobs to China. This has implications for
real estate on both sides of the offshoring divide. The increasing possibilities of global sourcing more
broadly have the potential of impacting urban space, form and structure, and consequently, the demand
for real estate. An underlying reason for the formation of industrial, urban clusters and agglomerations
has been the benefits derived from having upstream and downstream firms located close by. The
growth in offshoring can therefore mitigate the need for sectoral clustering. Some potential impacts on
the US office and industrial markets are discussed in Bardhan and Kroll 2003. Of course, this process
can go hand-in-hand with a cluster developing at the receiving end, and we see the growth of the high-
tech oriented urban metros of Bangalore and Hyderabad in India, as well as a number of cities in
China.
21
A comparative look at office markets across a group of global cities underscores the broad
range and diversity in prices and illustrates some of the trends in the global economy. Countries at
different stages of development offer opportunities for the introduction of new real estate products and
services. Figure 8 shows relative leasing costs for office space for the ten most costly markets
worldwide in 2000 and 2006.
Figure 8
Top 10 Global Office Markets by Occupancy Costs
2000 and 2006
0 50 100 150 200 250
New Delhi/Stockholm
Dubai/Moscow
Dublin/New York
Paris/Hong Kong
Mumbai/Paris
Moscow/Zurich
Hong Kong/San Francisco
London-City/San Jose
Tokyo/Tokyo
London-West End/London
Dollars per square foot, annual
2000 2006
1ST CITY 2006/ 2ND CITY 2000
Source: Grubb & Ellis Real Estate Forecast 2007 and unpublished data 2002.
The change in the composition of the leading office markets between 2000 and 2006 demonstrates how
quickly urban commercial real estate markets in emerging economies can become part of the global
bidding process. Places like Mumbai and New Delhi were not even on the list of Grubb and Ellis' top
60 markets in 2000 or 2001. Status on the list can change quickly. Three US markets made the top ten
in 2000, riding on the coattails of the dot-com boom and the related financial boom, and San Jose was
the third most expensive metro office market worldwide. By 2006, no US market was in the top 10.
The US markets that were in the top 10 in 2000 are not shown in Figure 7 because they are no longer
22
in the top 10--midtown New York had the highest US rents, at $76, San Francisco rents were down to
$41, and San Jose to $31.
One of the key areas of opportunity for firms from developed countries, and from the US in
particular, is in the fast growing economies of Asia. India and China, for example, still have the
majority of their population in rural areas, in contrast to more advanced economies, where more than
three fourths of the population resides in urbanized areas (See Figure 9). Strong, regionally disparate
growth in key urban areas in both countries is driving domestic, internal labor mobility, and together
with the burgeoning middle-classes is responsible for an upsurge in demand for residential real estate,
in spite of the housing price to income ratio, relative to the industrialized countries. In addition to rapid
growth and urbanization, recent financial reforms and developments have resulted in greater
availability of mortgages at the relatively low, global interest rates.
Figure 9
Percent of Population in Urban Areas
Selected Countries 2005
0 25 50 75 100
India
China
Japan
Russia
Germany
Mexico
France
USA
Brazil
Percent of Poulation in Urban Areas
Source: World Bank
At the same time, a number of factors have led to increase in demand for all other categories of
real estate (Conner, Halle, 2006; Conner, Liang, 2006). Higher tax revenues for the governments have
23
inspired serious spending on many infrastructure projects, such as highways, dams, bridges and so-
forth. Greater disposable incomes, at least in a certain segment of the urbanized upper middle-classes,
and emergent consumerist attitudes have spurred a retail boom; and increased internal and external
trade have led to increased demand for warehousing space, as well as improvements in existing and
construction of new ports and airports.
In addition to both rising commercial and residential demand, and the opportunities that are
presented to foreign players because of inadequate local capacity, there is yet another by-product of
globalization that plays a role in generating opportunities for global players in these markets,
particularly for US firms. The demonstration effect of high-quality US real estate, conveyed most
effectively by expatriates and diaspora returnees generates the kind of specific demand for certain type
of real estate attributes, whether in Grade A office space, or Silicon Valley style single family homes,
that can in turn result in opportunities for US businesses. US real estate developers, service and
consulting firms have piggybacked on the major foray made by US multinationals into India and
China, and have been instrumental in dealing with demand for all categories of real estate, both for
purely business purposes, as well as for housing requirements of expats. Both China and India have
attracted developers from nearby Asian locations, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as
construction companies from throughout the world to augment their capacity. Although US firms have
played a limited role so far, either as intermediaries between US clients and local suppliers or in
providing a specialized skill, the past couple of years have seen a significant increase in US interest in
the region.
The demographic profile in many of the emerging market giants is also suggestive of future
opportunities. Household size, for example, is related to many factors, including income levels, and the
historical and cultural context. Most of the developing countries have 4 or more persons per household
24
(see Figure 10), but there is broad expectation that income growth, labor mobility, proliferation of
unitary households, and the breakdown of traditional joint families would tend to reduce the number
of persons per household, which in turn would increase the demand for housing units.
Figure 10
Household Size by Country
(2000/2001 unless otherwise noted)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
India
Malaysia
Mexico
China
Korea
Japan
Canada
US UK*
Germany
Sweden**
Source: World Bank, US Bureau of the Census, UN, Kwon 2003 *U rban population only **1990.
25
Figure 11
Dependency Ratios*: Industrialized Countries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
19501970
19902010
20302050
Percen
t
Young Dep., Industrialized Old Dep., Industrialized Young Dep., Developing Old Dep., Developing
Source: Global Demographics, UN, 2006.
*Proportion of dependent population to working aged population
The changing age profile of the population in both industrialized and developing countries has
major implications for all aspects of the economy, including real estate. While both types of countries
have seen a decrease in the number of young dependents relative to adults of working age, there are
projections of a sharp rise in the number of aging dependents over the next few decades for the
industrialized world, and for a healthy share of working adults, with large numbers in the home-buying
cohort, in the developing world (see Figure 11).
US real estate firms have begun to respond to these opportunities in a variety of ways.
Company records, interviews, and a survey of selected real estate firms shows movement first to
markets in other developed countries, where economic structure and underlying institutional support is
often similar to the US. The increasing trend to invest in emerging and developing markets is a more
recent phenomenon.
26
Globalization of Real Estate Firm Characteristics.
We draw on two sources of information to examine to what extent real estate firms are
expanding into global markets, the countries where they operate, and the motivations for these
changes. We built a data set from the OneSource database that includes US firms in real estate
categories with 500 or more employees. The OneSource sample includes 326 firms in real-estate
related finance, real estate investment trusts, real estate services (brokerage and management), leisure
and recreation related real estate, and construction as shown in Figure 12.3 From OneSource records,
annual reports and websites, we determined which of these firms served market areas beyond the US,
and their geographic areas of operation.
Figure 12
Profile of Onesource Large Real Estate and Construction Firms
by Industry Sector
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Construction
and
Development
Real Estate
Finance
REITS Real Estate
Brokerage
and
Management
Leisure/
Recreation
Related
Per
cen
t o
f F
irm
s o
r E
mp
loy
men
t
Firms Employees
Source: Authors from Onesource data; firms with 500 or more employees
Only 13 percent of the large real estate firms listed in OneSource had global operations beyond
the United States. Firms involved in real estate investment activity, including in the form of REITs or
3 In construction we include only firms whose construction activity involved real estate development, rather than those operating in infrastructure or technical facilities alone.
27
other investment vehicles, were more likely to be global than were firms involved in real estate
services (see Figure 13). The brokerage and management category, which has the greatest number of
firms, includes on the one hand, residential brokerage firms involved primarily in single family home
sales, which were largely US based (although a few had alliances with companies overseas that
allowed them to provide international relocation services to their customers), and on the other hand,
some of the largest commercial real estate services firms, which provide a wide package of services to
clients throughout the world. The finance category also represents a wide range of activities, from
firms specializing in single family home loans (largely locally based), to firms that develop real estate
investment pools and collective trusts for private investors (often international in scope).
Figure 13
International Activity of US Real Estate Firms by Subsector
Onesource Database
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Construction
and
Development
Real Estate
Finance
REITS Real Estate
Brokerage
and
Management
All Firms
Per
cen
t S
erv
ing
Wo
rld
wid
e M
ark
et
Source: Authors from Onesource data on firms with 500 or more employees
Most of the companies in this database were more likely to have global activities in Europe or
North America (Mexico and/or Canada), than in Asia. The pattern for construction firms, however,
was somewhat different than for other real estate firms--a larger share was involved in Asia and the
Middle East than in Europe and North America. The construction firms involved in Asia and the
28
Middle East were primarily those serving specialized sectors and infrastructure needs, such as the
energy sector or specialized manufacturing.
A second source of information was a survey of the 168 policy advisory board members of the
Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, who represent a broad range of large real estate
finance and service firms, including legal, consulting, and design firms as well as core real estate
brokerage and management firms. The survey was conducted in February and March 2007 via e-mail
and the web. Responses came from 44 (26 percent of those surveyed). The responses are clearly self
selecting, with those involved in global operations more likely to respond. From the point of view of a
major purpose of the survey, to learn where and why firms were involved in global activities, the self-
filtering issue is not a big concern. Of greater importance in interpreting the response is the location
profile of the survey sample firms compared to the OneSource database. While the survey sample of
firms includes companies from throughout the United States, it is more heavily weighted towards firms
headquartered in California than is the OneSource sample. Later research will involve an expanded set
of questions and a broader sample group combined with more in-depth interviews of selected firms for
purposes of case studies.
More than 60 percent of the firms responding to the survey were involved in global activity.
The areas of international activity of firms in the survey were somewhat different from that of the
firms in the OneSource database (see Figure 14). Europe was the geographic area most frequently
cited for global activity, followed closely by Asia. Canada and Mexico played less of a role than
among firms in the OneSource database.
29
Figure 14
International Market Areas of Global US Real Estate Firms
Onesource Database and Survey Respondents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Europe Asia Mexico
and
Canada
Central
And South
America
Australia
and Pacific
Islands
Middle
East and
Africa
Percen
t o
f fi
rm
s se
rv
ing
g
lob
al
ma
rk
ets
Onesource Survey Respondents
Source: Authors from Onesource data on firms with 500 or more employees
and FCREUE survey of Policy Advisory Board members 2007.
Firms were asked not only about current plans but about future regions/countries under
consideration for expansion. Asia was the region most frequently mentioned, followed by Mexico and
Canada, as shown in Figure 15. Almost all of the firms planning future global business expansion
were already involved in international real estate activity.
Firms with global activities were almost entirely involved in investment or development
activity (or in most cases both), while a much smaller number were involved in brokerage, consulting,
or other services. The primary motivation for moving into other markets was to provide more
diversification to the pool of investments (Figure 16). While most firms selected global markets based
on their expert opinion on relative risks and returns, in some cases, especially with moves into Asia,
the firm was responding to demand from their investors and shareholders, despite some concerns over
the risks and potential returns. As one respondent noted, the firm's strategy of concentrating on
markets in Europe, which they perceived as more predictable and reliable, was beginning to lose them
clients who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity for potential higher returns in Asia. Some
30
service firms and REITS specializing in specific product types were also drawn to global markets by
potential demand from foreign customers, or by requests from existing multinational clients.
Figure 15
Future Global Markets of Surveyed US Real Estate Firms
0%
10%
20%
30%40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Europe Asia Mexico and
Canada
Central
And South
America
Australia
and Pacific
Islands
Middle
East and
Africa
Share of Global Firms Surveyed--Current Int'l Markets
Share of Global Firms Surveyed--Future Int'l Markets
Share of Nonglobal Firms--Future Int'l Markets
Source: Authors from Onesource data on firms with 500 or more employees
Figure 16
Real Estate Firm Motivations for Globalizing
Source: FCREUE survey of Policy Advisory Board members 2007.
* High returns; access to specialized services.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Diversify
Investments
Demand from
US Investors
Demand from
Foreign
Customers
Following US
Multinational
Clients
Other*
% o
f resp
on
den
ts t
o t
he q
uest
ion
31
Observing global moves by different types of real estate firms provides some insight into the
competitive advantages of US real estate firms. Real estate services firms have been able to move
from the US to a global market place through the ability to transfer a broad mix of services, from
brokerage to property management to relocation services to technology advances, to the multinational
customers they have served at home. REITs and private developers have found niches of expertise to
help them compete in global markets--moving into China and Mexico with US retail center design and
a mix of US and local tenants; offering multi-tenant warehouse and industrial space in Japan and other
markets where single tenant and owner-occupied space has dominated development; providing large
scale housing development in markets that have relied on smaller scale residential development; and
exporting a variety of leisure communities to both developed and developing countries.
Even with these successful moves, the US real estate industry faces significant competition for
growing worldwide real estate opportunities. Singapore and Hong Kong developers, for example, have
been far more active than US firms in China and India's expanding real estate markets. European firms
have shown a strong ability to compete in architecture and urban design.
Research Issues and Concluding Remarks
Real estate markets are particularly complex because a number of economic and “extra-
economic” factors go into the determination of economic outcomes. Figure 17 gives a schematic
overview of some of the underlying economic and other factors that shape the response of real estate to
globalization, and the channels through which they influence real estate markets – the prices,
quantities, composition, structure and so-forth.
32
Non-tradability
Local and National
Regulatory Issues
Size and Importance
of Real Estate Sector Relative
to GDP
Supply Supply/Demand
Macro -Effects
Global Capital Markets
Interest Rates
Figure 17
Interplay of Globalization and Real Estate: Some Research Issues
Real Estate
The combination of the non-tradability of the underlying, physical asset and the relative
inelasticity of supply make the interplay of globalization and real estate unique, from a research point
of view. In addition to the research issues brought up earlier in this report, there are some other
questions that arise. The impact of global sourcing on real estate firm organization and management
challenges are another issue that requires attention. While some issues relating to portfolio
diversification through investing in publicly traded international real estate firms have been studied,
the increasing integration of financial markets, their co-movement, contagion effects, cross-listing of
real estate securities, the nexus between banking and real estate, and the growing role of capital
markets in financing real estate are other areas where more research is required.
The effect on current real estate markets of global migrations of people is yet another example
of the impact of globalization on real estate. Some analysts have commented on the role of foreign
born (the largest cohort in US history since 1910) in the recent housing boom in the US. While there
has been anecdotal evidence on their purchasing power, home-buying proclivity etc. (particularly in
33
some key coastal markets) the question is still wide open. The other real estate related issue brought
about by the global movement of people is connected to the hospitality sector; analysts expect strong
growth in global tourism in the coming years, primarily fuelled by the large numbers of Chinese
citizens venturing abroad.
The effect of this globalization on the employment side of the industry is also an open question.
As US real estate firms expand operations as well as investments overseas, the "local" aspect of the
industry reemerges. Foreign offices most often involve local acquisitions, partnerships, or the hiring of
local staff. One design firm interviewed as part of a related study noted that in the early period of
operations in China, much of the professional work was done within the US offices, but as the firm
gained experience and broadened its local presence, far less of the international work was done within
the US and a greater share of offshore employees were local citizens. In India, with English language
skills and institutional similarities, the great majority of real estate staff of US firms are Indian citizens.
The international prospects for real estate firms suggest a number of other unanswered
questions that could be addressed by future research. A few to start off with include:
What additional data are needed to better understand the flows of real estate related capital among
countries? How does the changing position of emerging economies in the global economy affect the
real estate supply and demand balance in terms of where new development is required, price levels,
competition for capital, and opportunities for and competitiveness of US firms relative to those from
other industrialized countries? What innovations are needed in risk management for the future? What
is the job creation impact domestically of US real estate investments abroad? What is the impact of
global sourcing on urban agglomerations and clusters?
Globalization of the real estate industry is now a fact of economic life. Cross-border
investments are increasingly common, both in physical assets and in portfolio investments; offshoring
34
part of the supply chain is being increasingly resorted to; and variables from the field of international
economics, such as openness, international capital flows, exchange rates and so-forth have an
increasing impact on real estate markets.
US firms, along with firms from many other countries find themselves facing major
opportunities and challenges in the suddenly global real estate market. Despite some institutional
reforms, there are still significant differences among countries that complicate the process of
development, ownership and leasing. Differences in business structure, demographic profiles and
cultural preference may present new opportunities for US builders, investors and service providers but
also require new approaches to analysis, design and investment for successful new ventures.
In spite of rapid globalization, it should be noted that real estate is still primarily influenced by
local factors. Local knowledge, local economies, local actors and local institutions will continue to
play the significant role, albeit somewhat affected now by firms, consumers and economic influences
from other, distant parts of the world.
35
References Ades, A., and E. Glaeser, Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants, Quarterly Journal of
Economics 1 (1995) 195-227. Allen, F., Chui, M.K.F., and Maddaloni, A., 2004. Financial Systems in Europe, the USA, and ASIA.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20:490-508 pp. Bardhan, A and Kroll, C, 2003. New Wave of Outsourcing. Research Report. Fisher Center for Real
Estate and Urban Economics, University of California Berkeley. Bardhan, A.D., Edelstein, R.H., and Leung, C., 2004. A Note on Globalization and Urban Residential
Rents. Journal of Urban Economics, 56:505-513 pp. Bardhan, A., Edelstein, R. H. and Tsang, D. 2006. Global Financial Integration and Real Estate
Returns. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=905313. Conner, P. and Halle, M., 2006. Asian REITs: A New Dimension for Investors. Prudential Real Estate
Investors. Conner, P. and Liang, Y., 2006. Ask Not Why International, Ask Why Not International. Prudential
Real Estate Investors. Deng, Yongheng, Zheng, Della, and Ling Changfeng . An Early Assessment of Residential Mortgage
Performance in China. 2004. Los Angeles, Lusk Center for Real Estate, University of Southern California. Working Paper.
Edge, John A. The Globalization of Real Estate Appraisal: A European Perspective. The Appraisal Journal. 2001.
Eichholtz, P.M.A., 1995, “The Stability of the Covariances of International Property Share Returns,” The Journal of Real Estate Research, 11, 2, 149-158.
Fujita, M., P. Krugman, A. Venables, The Spatial Economy; Cities, Regions and International Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001.
Geurts, T.G. and A.J. Jaffe, 1996, “Risk and Real Estate Investment: An International Perspective,” The Journal of Real Estate Research, 11, 2, 117-130.
Giordano, Joe. 2003 Nov. Managing Construction Finance risk in the UK: what funders should be looking for. Briefings in Real Estate Finance. 3(4):298-304.
Goetzmann, W.N. and S.M. Wachter, 1996, “The Global Real Estate Crash: Evidence From an International Database,” Yale School of Management and The Wharton School, unpublished working paper.
Henderson, V., Systems of Cities in Closed and Open Economies, Regional Science and Urban Economics 12 (1982) 325-351.
Hoesli, M., J. Lekander and W. Witkiewiez, 2004, “International Evidence on Real Estate as a Portfolio Diversifier,” The Journal of Real Estate Research, 26, 2, 161-206.
Jacobides, M.G. (2007 forthcoming). Playing Football in a Soccer Field: Value Chain Structures, Institutional Modularity and Success in Foreign Expansion. Managerial and Decision Economics. 28: 1–20
Jones, G.; Jimenez, E., and Ward, P. 1993. The Land Market in Mexico Under Salinas - a Real-Estate
36
Boom Revisited. Environment and Planning a. May; 25(5):627-651 Kallberg, J. G.; Liu, C. H., and Pasquariello, P. Regime Shifts in Asian Equity and Real Estate
Markets. Real Estate Economics. 2002 Summer; 30(2):263-291. P. Krugman, R.L. Elizondo, Trade Policy and the Third World Metropolis, Journal of Development
Economics 49 (1996) 137-50. Lichtenberger, E. Internationalization and Restratification of the Real-Estate Market, the Labor-Market
and the Housing-Market - Comparative Research in Vienna, Budapest and Prague. Mitteilungen Der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft. 1993; 135:7-40
Linneman, Peter. 2006. China Rising. NAI Global. Luxemberg, S., 2007a. Handful of US REITs are players in Asia. National Real Estate Investor,46-48
pp. Luxemberg, S., 2007b. REITs Storm Asian Shores. National Real Estate Investor,43-45 pp.
Nijman, J. 2000. Mumbai's Real Estate Market in 1990s - De-Regulation, Global Money and Casino Capitalism. Economic and Political Weekly. Feb 12; 35(7):575-582
Ong, Seow Eng. 2005. Mortgage Markets in Asia. European Real Estate Society Conference. Rushmore, Stephen. 2007. How To Participate in India, China Middle Class. Hotels. March.
Sheng, Y. K. and Kirinpanu, S. 2000. Once Only the Sky Was the Limit: Bangkok's Housing Boom and the Financial Crisis in Thailand. Housing Studies. Jan; 15(1):11-27.
Stevenson, S., 2000, “International Real Estate Diversification: Empirical Tests using Hedged Indices,” The Journal of Real Estate Research, 19, 1, 105-131.
Torto, R.G., 2002. Benefits and Issues in Global Real Estate Investing: A Review of the Research. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 8:38-40 pp.
Zhu, J.M., Sim, L.L., and Zhang, X.Q., 2006. Global Real Estate Investments and Local Cultural Capital in the Making of Shanghai's New Office Locations. Habitat International, 30:462-481 pp.
